A critical evaluation of academic internal audit
| Pages | 128-135 |
| Date | 01 September 2004 |
| Published date | 01 September 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410548753 |
| Author | Jacqueline Ann Blackmore |
| Subject Matter | Education |
A critical evaluation of
academic internal audit
Jacqueline Ann Blackmore
The author
Jacqueline Ann Blackmore is Faculty Quality Officer at
Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Keywords
Internal auditing, Higher education, Standards
Abstract
This account of internal audit is set within the context of higher
education in the UK and a fictitiously named Riverbank
University. The study evaluates the recent introduction of
“Internal Academic Audit” to the University and compares the
process with that of the internationally recognised ISO 19011
Guidelines for Auditing Quality Management Systems, used both
in the private and public sectors. A thorough review of the
literature on audit theory was conducted in order to gauge best
and worst practices. The aim was to identify any theory-practice
gaps between the British Standard guidelines and actual internal
academic audit performance, as well as any possible reasons for
them. Finally, it is suggested that when compared with the
British Standard’s model the internal academic audit process is
somewhat less robust, particularly in terms of auditor selection
and training.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
Introduction
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) was
established in 1997 as an independent body
funded by subscription from Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) and through the contracts with
the main HE funding bodies including the Higher
Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE). Until recently, the QAA assessed the
quality and standards of all 180 HE institutions in
the UK at two levels. First, Institutional Audit,
which concerned an institution’s effectiveness at
managing the academic standards of its awards
and the quality of its programmes. Second,
Universal Subject Reviews, which assessed the
performance of academic programmes.
Between 1993 (when they were carried out by
HEFCE) and 2001 over 2,500 reviews were
carried out in more than 60 subjects at an
estimated cost to all HEIs of between £45m and
£50m per year (Better Regulation Task Force,
2002). This massive cost caused a number of
complaints from Universities, particularly those
who did not rely on HEFCE for the majority of
their funding, and a decision was taken to reduce
the cost burden on Universities by combining the
two. Thus, in January 2002, a revised method of
Academic Review was introduced which includes
Institutional Audits. Part of this “deal” was that
HEIs publish information on quality and
standards of teaching and learning (with a deadline
of December 2004 at the latest) on a national
Teaching Quality Information (TQI) Web-site
available from March 2004 (HEFCE, 2003). In
order to facilitate an informed choice of
University, the Website will be available for use by
interested stakeholders including, potential
students, parents, employers and potential
employees.
Of particular importance to this paper is an
additional requirement by HEFCE for HEIs to
undertake their own “periodic reviews” of
departments – “periodic” being defined as at least
once every six years. They are then required to
produce summaries of such reviews for publication
on the TQI Website, together with the actions
taken in response to any needs identified as a
result. Internal academic audit was introduced
within the case study University to satisfy this
criterion as well as acting as a preparatory exercise
for its next Institutional Audit.
The aim of this paper is to determine the
robustness of internal academic audit within HE,
when compared with the British Standard
guidelines on auditing (BS EN ISO 19011, 2002)
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 12 · Number 3 · 2004 · pp.128-135
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684880410548753
These comments were assembled from the responses
from the members of the review team and represent
their consensus view.
128
To continue reading
Request your trial